OPTIMISM

Let's face it, ol' H.C. can be a tad on the dark side sometimes. My world is full of apocalyptic notions. I believe people are inherently evil (You have to convince yourself to do the right thing and talk yourself out of doing the wrong thing. Right?) I believe that a nuclear weapon will go off somewhere in the world before the end of this century. I believe that people are more narcissistic then they have ever been in history, and that as a result our families are falling apart along with our morals. But, there is another side to my personality that a lot of you don't get to see. Believe it or not, I'm basically a very happy person. In fact, my nickname in high school was "Smiley". In order to maintain my sanity, I look for the good things in life. Believe me when I tell you, if you look for only the bad things in life, you will end up one miserable person. Whenever I read the newspapers, I always read the comics last. After a long night of CNN or FOX, I always try to watch a comedy or some comedian. And instead of continuously searching for whatever is wrong with this world, sometimes I look for what is right. So, to help you through these trying times, I'm going to show you the better side of humanity. I really believe this goes on more than you know, it's just that it doesn't bleed....so it doesn't lead.

*Business Man Gives Away Toys*

In Longway , Texas, businessman Don Talley gathers up toys in the months before Christmas to give to needy families in his community. Don and his "Darlings" (helpers) gave away a ton of toys but that wasn't enough. They even reached into their own pockets to buy even more toys so that in their words, "every child in the community would get a Christmas present." Way-to-go Don and his Darlings.

*Secret Santa*

Even though he died this year of cancer, Larry Stewart led a life that should be an inspiration to all of us. During the course of his life Larry gave away $1.3 million dollars as a "Secret Santa" to people in need he found through social agencies or word-of-mouth. He kept his identity a secret up until he realized he was dying and then only reveiled it because he wanted to inspire others to be more generous. RIP Larry, think of all the people you made happy, if only for a moment.

*Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet*

I know it's far more popular to view anyone with wealth as evil bastards who got where they are by crooked means or by stepping on labor. I guess I'll never be able to convince the 30% of you that are always hating anyone with success. But, for the rest of you, consider that Warren Buffet gave away $37 billion to various charities, nearly 85% of his total wealth. The lion's share of that went to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, a foundation that last year gave more medicine and food to people in Africa than any country in the European Union. So much for the kinder, gentler Socialistic notion.

*Salvation for the Salvation Army*

One of my favorite organizations, The Salvation Army, received 31 $100 dollar bills from a person known only as "Leo". The person left a note saying he wanted to outdo a previous donation of 30 $100 dollar bills. Now that's a war I can stand behind. The money will go to helping poor people heat their homes. I find that a little more important than whether or not the Salvation Army will enlist openly gay people, the big issue on the left.

*America the Charitable*

Even the left-leaning MSN has to admit it; "The United States leads the world in levels of charitable activity." The rest of the world tends to forget the wonderful things the U.S. does around the world. From supplying medicine to feeding the hungry, both in our country and outside, no one can deny the U.S. shows her passionate side. With hardly any effort, you can find dozens of barely reported stories of American generosity. Sure, it's true that the U.S. also does bad things, but focusing only on that side doesn't do her justice. Would you want to be judged only on what you did wrong? I thought not.

Now, go forth my children. Take this renewed faith in humanity and smile a little and laugh a little. Watch a comedian or read the comics. Watch a sunrise or just spend a few moments appreciating what you have. While it's true there are a lot of things to be concerned with, your life will be far happier if you spend at least some time searching for what's good...instead of only what's bad. H.C. :)

MY CHRISTMAS WISH LIST

If I only could, I would wish these blessings on all of you (and me!) for the Holidays;

*Peace*

Peace in all it's forms. Peace of mind, Peace of spirit, Peace among mankind, Peace between ourselves and the Environment, Piece of.......well, you get the idea.

*Clarity of Thought*

This one may sound odd at first, but don't throw it in the "return" pile just yet, clarity of thought is very important. It's so hard to make good decisions if your mind is burdened with stress, emotion, or irrational thought. To truly clear your mind up is to see things as they really are, untainted by prejudice, preconceptions, or outside influence. Of all the gifts I would give you, this is the one I would love for myself.

*Foresight instead of Hindsight*

Wouldn't it be great if we knew how things were going to turn out BEFORE they happened. (like lottery numbers!) If I could only count the number of times that I thought to myself, "If only I knew it was going to turn out like this." Hindsight's only attribute is that it teaches and humbles us. A good thing I suppose, but Foresight, it seems, would make hindsight unnecessary.

*Patience and Conviction*

This is one I've learned from hunting. When your out in the cold woods waiting for something to show up that has no schedules, you begin to doubt. Doubt creeps into your soul and starts eating away at your faith in your decisions. Soon you begin to second guess yourself. "Maybe I should have sat by the corn, or up on the ridge." You tell yourself. Finally, doubt wins and you stand up.........just in time to watch a big buck bound off. Making your best decisions work sometimes requires patience. Without conviction to your idea, patience waits alone.

*Love*

What kind of Wish list would this be without love? Fortunately, I'm very lucky in this department. I have wonderful children, adorable grandchildren, and a wife who love me and supports all my endeavors, no matter how strange (like Professional Bass Fisherman or Writer) I can't imagine a world without love and I believe it's part of the human condition to need it. So as my final wish to all of you, I wish all the love you give to be returned to you double, and that you use that love to make someone else's life here a little better. (Utopian I know, but this is a Wish List )

I hope all of you have the best Christmas, Hanuka, Kwanzaa, or (Enter your choice of Winter Holiday) ever! H.C.

WHO IS A. Q. KAHN AND WHY SHOULD YOU CARE

Saddam Hussein, it turns out, got his revenge on the U.S. in the end. When the United States and our allies in the Iraq War could not produce the Weapons of Mass Destruction that we claimed were in Iraq, something happened around the world that would leave it's imprint to this day. The world became far more sceptical of foreign intelligence by anyone, but particularly any by the U.S. or Britain. All and all, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Before we go jumping into War we should be 100% sure (or damn near it) that our reasons are just and accurate. But having said that, I would also warn people not to go too far the other way. Just because our intelligence isn't always accurate doesn't mean it's always wrong either. I would equate that logic to releasing all criminals because we discovered that some of them were innocent. With that in mind, I want to take a look at the dangers we all face in this "War on Terror" and help you decide if any of this should be feared or if it's all the result of propaganda by people with other agendas. First on my list of things to consider is a Pakistani scientist by the name of A. Q. Kahn.

Abdul Qadeer Kahn was born April 1, 1936 into a middle-class Mohajir/Pashtun Muslim family which migrated from British India to Pakistan in 1952. He obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science in 1960 from the University of Karachi, majoring in physical metallurgy. He then obtained the degree of Master of Science (Technology) in 1967 from Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, and a Doctor of Engineering degree in metallurgical engineering from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1972. Dr. Kahn then spent several years working on enriching uranium for the Netherlands. The Netherlands (home of Liberal thought) then supplied enriched uranium for the ill-fated idea of spreading nuclear energy to countries around the world. Every since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower started his "Atoms for Peace" project, the world had, (for some stupid reason) begun educating less advanced countries on how to start their own nuclear ambitions. That spreading this uranium around the world along with enrichment procedures may cause some problems in the future apparently never even occurred to them. Once educated, Dr. Kahn left the Netherlands to return to Pakistan (along with his new-found knowledge) with the goal of creating nuclear weapons for Muslim countries. Starting with Pakistan.

At this point I would like to address the idea that we have nuclear weapons, so who are we to tell other countries that they can not have them. This, to me, is like saying, "What's the difference between giving Gandhi an automatic weapon and giving one to Charles Manson?" Honestly, this is one of the dumbest (and I don't use that word often) arguments I have ever heard. If your a person who believes in back-ground checks for buying guns I'm not sure how you could open your mouth and let something so mindless fall out. Certainly there is a difference in who has a weapon. Sheesh. Now back to the point.

Every since India (Pakistan's Nemesis) announced in 1974 that it had created a nuclear weapon, Pakistan had been trying to create one of it's own. Now, with the knowledge supplied by A. Q. Kahn, Pakistan began it's clandestine nuclear weapons project. After denying for years that it even had a program (Gee, that sounds familiar), in 1987 Kahn announced in a British newspaper that Pakistan had indeed created a nuclear weapon. That Pakistan now has several nuclear weapons is no longer even disputed. More disturbing to the world than this revelation was the fact that it appears A.Q. Kahn had set up a network with Libya, Iran, and North Korea to help them with their nuclear ambitions too. Even Time magazine (not exactly a right-wing publication) ran a cover article calling Kahn a "The Merchant of Menace" detailing his involvement in providing Muslim nations with nuclear technology.

The purpose of me pointing out all this to you is this; With the recent report released by the NIE that Iran had stopped it's Nuclear weapons program back in 2003 (which, by the way it denied it ever had). There has been a rash of reporting designed to further embarrass the Bush Administration and halt our pressures on Iran. While I have no problem with embarrassing Bush, we should be very careful not to confuse this report with thinking that there is no problem or danger out there. We didn't know about A.Q. Kahn or his nuclear adventurism until it was too late. For us to assume that we now know everything that is going on and that there is no danger or clandestine efforts out there is very naive. Nuclear proliferation is going on and with the advent of the Internet it's getting worse. I hate to say it, but I think the world needs to see a nuclear weapon go off to finally come to grips with the danger that we do face. That politicians exaggerate and use fear as a tool to control or manipulate is irrefutable. But please don't ever start thinking that it's all smoke and mirrors. The danger is real and there are more A.Q. Kahns out there that we don't know about yet. I would hate to have a mushroom cloud be our day of awakening and our reaction be one of passion and not logic. The best defense we have is for us to accept that it will happen and to have our reaction well thought out in advance. H.C.

CATCHIN' UP

In order to bring you up to speed on all the crap that went down while I was having my own personal little writer's crisis, I decided to cover some off the major events that I felt were significant over the past two month and tell you what I thought of them ala' Andre. (I love when he does these, and I doubt I can do it as well. But here goes.)

*BUSH VETOES S-CHIP LEGISLATION....TWICE.*

S-Chip is a Federal program that gives medical coverage to children without any other coverage. The Democratic supported legislation has had pork barrel handouts attached to it as well as eligibility requirements that the Bush Administration thinks is too high. Frankly, using sick children as a political tool makes me nauseous and angry at both sides. My advice to Bush; sign the damn thing and point out all the crap the Dems have attached to it. Take the high moral ground and stop falling for the trap of being the evil bastard who won't give coverage to sick children because the Democrats are purposely attaching things to it that you find objectionable.

*NATIONAL DEBT HITS $9.1 TRILLION*

The Dems haven't been pointing this one out near enough. When Clinton left office our National Debt was $5.8 Trillion. Under Bush spending has been completely out of control. The War on Terror can account for a half a trillion and the prescription drug program can account for another half trillion at the top end. This still leaves nearly $2 Trillion unaccounted for and I for one would like to know where the hell it went. Democrats; this is a good stick to beat Republicans with that you haven't been using nearly enough.

*THE SURGE IS SUCCESSFUL (AT LEAST FOR NOW)*

Back in August I stated that my patience with the War had nearly reached an end. I stated that I would give General Petraeus the 6 months that he asked for and I refused to join the Democrats that wanted to throw up the white flag before the results were even in. However, as I said, this would be the last chance for the Iraqis to stand up. Well, the results are in and it looks like (for whatever reason), it was a success. Even reliable Bush critic Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn) has been forced to admit it, The media has tried desperately to downplay this success (which in my eyes borders on treason). To not be happy that things are going better for our troops is disgraceful. The media has shown itself to be as stubborn and closed minded to news that they don't want to hear as they accuse the Bush Administration of being. Give Petraeus another star, the man is achieving something even I thought was impossible.

*MICHIGAN DISENFRANCHISES VOTERS*

This makes me so angry my veins are throbbing and my eyes are spinning. In an attempt to gain more attention in the primary cycle of the 2008 presidential election , our illustrious idiots on the Democratic side of the aisle came up with a scheme that is stupid at the very least and down right criminal at the very most. They decided (along with a few other states) to try to leapfrog over the first few states in the primary season. This resulted in the top four contenders on the Democratic side (minus Hillary) to withdraw from being on the ballot in Michigan in order to gain more favor in Iowa and New Hampshire. This means people in Michigan that wanted to vote for Barack Obama or John Edwards for instance, are now left with only Hillary or one of the low-tier candidates as a choice (you can't write them in as they didn't sign up as write-in candidates). As if that's not bad enough, now the Michigan voter's guide suggests you just vote "uncommitted" and then they (DNC) will decide for you where to put your vote. Apparently the DNC is cool with you submitting blank ballots and they vote for you. I'm thinking of moving to Mexico where their system is less corrupt. (Sarcasm added for flavor.)

*NEW LIFE CHURCH SHOOTING*

I'm only bringing this one up for one reason. Back in April there was a shooting at Virginia Tech that resulted in 32 innocent deaths. The scenario was similar in that in both incidences the killer shot two people and then left only to continue his rampage somewhere else. At Virginia Tech the response was to issue an E-Mail announcing that there was a shooting and that was that. At the New Life Church their response was to tell their other branches to arm their security people to guard the parishioners. The end result? The disturbed young man was shot by one of the security guards and his rampage was ended before he could kill "all the Christians" who "brought this upon themselves." There is a very disturbing trend of accepted prejudice against Christians, but I'm glad that this was handled correctly by allowing innocent people to defend themselves instead of sticking to the P.C. anti-gun methods that result in situations like Virginia Tech.

*ON A PERSONAL NOTE*

While I've been gone from the blogging scene, I've spent my time working with John and Steve from Studio 1714 on building a studio from which to broadcast our new Internet radio program. We're getting close to having produced our 100th video on Studio 1714's Youtube site so we have some events planned to celebrate. I'll keep all of you posted and I hope you'll join us in our efforts to keep you well informed while having as much fun as possible. I'm glad to be back and hope your glad to have me back. If not, remember, it's all Andre's fault. H.C.

DID CNN SET UP REPUBLICANS IN THE YOUTUBE DEBATES?

Once again the issue of media bias raises it's ugly head. This time in the form of the CNN/YOUTUBE debates. While CNN is celebrating the fact that they hosted the #1 rated Presidential debate of all time, some conservatives are left grumbling that the "Secret Selection Process" CNN used was questionable at the very least. Somehow CNN didn't find it necessary to even 'Google' some of the people who's questions were chosen. This "oversite" on CNN's part meant that Retired General, Keith Kerr, who is on Hillary Clinton's Gay and Lesbian Rights Steering committee got to question Republicans as to why they (Republicans) don't think our military is "professional" enough to handle having openly gay people in their ranks. The question itself should have raised flags, as our military is still operating on the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy set up by none other than Bill Clinton. This "oversite" lead to bloggers such as Conservative Michelle Malkin, jumping all over CNN for allowing political activists for the Democratic Party to handle the questions.

I take a slightly different view of this than most of the right wing columns I have read . Ms Malkin demonstrates in her piece that several "operatives" for the Dems got questions selected. Now, the General, I think, should never have gotten his question through, but to say that someone is in collusion simply because they support Democratic candidates is a bit of a stretch. Michelle points out a Barack supporter, a Edwards supporter, as well as more Hillary supporters. I would assume, in a random sampling, that you would find some people who actively support different candidates including some Democrats. To push it as far as she did diminishes the real point; CNN was not handling the debates fairly.

I think what we're seeing here is simply a left wing dominated media source (CNN) not having a clue as to why they've demonstrated bias. In their world, Democrats should be asking Republicans hard questions. It stands to reason, they believe, that only Democrats would ask the hard questions. So where's the foul? Well the foul is that CNN isn't applying that same principle to the other side of our tired two-party system. CNN uses the same pool of people to pick both the Democratic Youtube Debate questions and the Republican Youtube Debates questions. Now that would be fine if CNN would just come forward and tell use who these people are so we can assess for ourselves if there was a fair sampling from the political spectrum. But CNN doesn't want to come clean and for good reason. The panel was chosen from "Mainstream Media" according to CNN, and since the MM is decidedly left leaning, even according to CNN's own Lou Dobbs, of course the panel would lean left also. Again, CNN sees no foul. All this comes at a time when the Democrats are boycotting FOX News because of their, (you guessed it) ...political bias.

Did CNN purposely slant the questions harshly against the Republicans and softball the Democrats? NO, not purposely. Did one of Hillary's supporters take an opportunity to publicly embarrass Republicans? Yes, definitely. Did Hillary know? I think there are standing orders in the Elect Hillary Camp, she doesn't need to know or approve. Should CNN have been more vigilant in checking out who these people were? Certainly, and the fact that they didn't, speaks volumes. But, in the end, this is just more proof of my chief complaint about the left. They can't see their own prejudices because they're always too busy pointing out someone else's. H.C.

Free Speech Frank

Hello everyone. O.K. , O.K. I know I said I was done. The hardest part about coming back is that I feel like I'm not being "A Man of My Word". I like to be a person you can trust, who says something and stands behind it. Good or Bad. But, I have so much I want to tell you that I'm about to burst at the seams. The elections are coming up and issues of free speech and personal liberties are everywhere and even though I still feel my chances of influencing anyone are slim, I have to try. So, as an opening piece I'm running this old clip of Frank Zappa on "Crossfire". (It don't get any stranger than this!) Frank brings up some great issues on censorship and it falls in line with how I feel. Enjoy and think.

UNCLE SAM WANTS......ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

So far I've done a pretty good job of fulfilling my promise to piss off everyone on both sides. But as far as I know, I've yet to really receive any flack from my Hispanic friends. Part of the reason is I have so much respect for Hispanic people. I don't think I would be overstating my position if I said I think Hispanics are the hardest working people in America. Most of my opinions about Hispanics and their efforts to come to the U.S. result from my two years working with the Spanish-Speaking Center that once existed here in Flint. I had several new Mexican immigrants working under me doing house construction and I got to know some of them really well. An interesting fact among the Mexicans that I got to know is; even though they were here legally, they all had several family members living with them that were not. The plan was, as near as I could decipher it, for one of them to go through all the bribes and paperwork involved in getting here legally, then set up a house that the illegal ones could stay in. All of the Mexicans I had working with me took their entire paycheck home to support their families and kept none for themselves. That's hard not to admire, such a great loyalty to their family and so little concern for their own needs and wants. However, it still leaves America with the problem of millions of people here illegally that we don't have any way of knowing who they are or if they are a danger to society. Building a better border is a good starting point, but what do we do with all these people? I have an answer that is sure to piss a lot of people off, but considering the other options, it's at least worth looking at.

So what's my plan? Put them in the military. Hang on, hang on, don't get too upset just yet. Hear me out and then you can start criticizing. First off, it's totally voluntary, I'm not talking about drafting anyone. Second, I have a carrot to use to draw them into considering the military as an option. Citizenship. Not only for themselves, but for two of their family members. Here's my plan; If your here illegally as of right now, (not for future violators) you can head on down to your local recruitment office with two family members in tow. If you sign up, you go into the military and all that comes with it. You are given a three year, revocable visa for yourself and your two family members and when you complete your tour of duty, presto! Everyone becomes a legal citizen of the United States. Not a bad deal all around. The United States gets the hardest working people on the planet for it's depleted military and records of who the illegals are, and the illegal immigrants get a path to citizenship that isn't an amnesty program that rewards them for breaking the law. What could be better? An extra bonus would be having a lot of people in the military who, well, look a lot like Mid-Easterners. That can come in handy in infiltration. Teach a few Hispanics Arabic, have them grow a beard, and bam, instant Muslim extremist.

The best part is, these people are looking for a way to serve this country. Honestly, the people who fight to get into this country, legally or illegally, love this country more than the people who have lived here all there lives. That's just a fact. Talk to almost any of them and they'll tell you .

So what's the downside? Here's some of the questions people that I've proposed this idea to have had. Q: What about non Mexican immigrants? A: Let 'em do it too, we need to know who all the illegals are. Q: That wouldn't be fair to the average recruit who doesn't get to use the program, would it? A: Granted. I think we should remove the college incentive for the illegals to equal things out. A: Isn't this just going to make it even more likely that we'll go to war? A: Let's hope not, but at least if we do we'll have enough people to do it right. Q: Isn't it racist to try to expand the military through illegals? A: No, I don't care what color they are. If your here illegally, you have been using our resources (schools, health care, etc.) and you should put something back into the well for all you took. That applies to everyone. The fact that most of them happen to be Hispanic has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that they came here illegally that makes them a eligible, not that they're brown. I wouldn't care if we had a problem with Canadians, same solution.

So here's your chance people. Let me know if this has any merit or if 'ol H.C. has finally fell over the edge. We have to do something, and the Democrat idea of legalizing everyone reeks of amnesty for lawbreakers. On the other side, the Republican idea of arresting everyone or having them pay $10,000 fines is damn near insane. This would give them a chance to rectify for their past deeds and serve this country in a way that would make it hard to call them anything other than a full-fledged American Vet and a U.S. Citizen. As for the rest of the illegals, after we offer them an honorable way out of their situation, I'll have a lot less sympathy for them if the Republicans get their way. H.C.

THROUGH A CHILD'S EYES

Yesterday, a very unusual incident happened to me. Since we've been discussing people and the way we stereotype each other, I thought it would make a good example of what can happen when we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt. However, while exploring the different ways to approach the story, I thought about my own rules for the media (which to a lesser extent includes me). One of the rules I outlined was to "only bring race into the story when it's relevant." I thought about whether or not this story was absolutely about race and I decided that we could still learn the lesson without it. So, I'm going to let all of you guess the race of the players and I won't tell you any different. But be careful and use this as an opportunity to examine yourself.

While on my way out to my car after work, I noticed a police officer friend of mine (not the same one in the previous post) standing in the shade, watching the students making their way both to and from their cars. We started talking about the safety of the students and how people need to be involved in protecting one another. Suddenly, a call came over his radio about a suspicious man who was standing in front of our day care center. The campus police started swarming toward the day care center from every direction. My friend and I could see what was going on from our view across the river. Another call came across his radio. Several parents were demanding that the police come immediately as the man seemed to be very agitated. We could hear a couple of officers respond that they were nearly there. My friend then commented that he couldn't really see what the problem was as there was no mention of a gun or any threatening actions. More calls came over the radio describing the man, nothing seemed to me to indicate that he was doing anything unusual. Again my friend noted that it didn't seem suspicious to him, but the radio made it clear that the parents and staff were not taking any chances and would not let any kids out until this man was checked out. Finally, after a brief silence, a call came over calling for the "all clear". The man was simply waiting for his daughter and was agitated because she was supposed to be out by then, and he was in a hurry. Somebody it seems, owed somebody an apology.

Now, there are a lot of things to consider here. The staff had never seen this man before because his wife usually picked his daughter up. And he did seem agitated. But it seems to me they jumped from stage one to stage four without considering two or three. Why not just ask the man if he needed help? What was he there for? The answer did seem to be his appearance.

Now, I want you to consider the possibilities. Did you automatically assume he was black? Why? What about my friend? Was he the same color as the man? The same religion? Is it possible the man was a Muslim? An Arab? Maybe even wearing a turban? Could he have been a large white biker-looking guy? How about a skinny creepy-looking guy? What color were the parents? The staff? Take a second and think about where you thought this was all going and why.

Since I'm not going to tell you about the specifics, let me tell you what bothered me the most about this whole story. His daughter. It brought tears to my eyes to think of his little girl (our day care only takes kids under 5) standing there wondering what's going on. "There's a bad man outside?" she must have thought to herself. Certainly she could sense that something was going on. By not demonstrating one simple act; the benefit of doubt, we changed that little girl's perspective of how she viewed her father, and the way she viewed other people's opinion of him, based only on appearance. I'm sure her dad will be fine, by this stage of his life he knows the worst of humanity. But it saddens me to think we robbed a little girl of her innocence, because we couldn't be brave enough to ask an unarmed man, "Can I help you." H.C.

WHAT CAN WE ALL DO TO END RACISM?

As much as I truly hate talking about race, I've come upon a few stories lately that I think can help us all understand one another. My banner on this story is a little misleading, so let me start by saying we're never going to completely eliminate racism. I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but I wouldn't be being completely honest if I didn't come clean and explain that racism, like terrorism, violence, crime, bias, and a lot of the other plagues of mankind are unfortunately here to stay. The best analogy I can give you is one that was given to me by my friend Will, "I mow my grass even though I know it will just grow back, the point isn't to stop it completely, the point is to keep it under control." I think everyone should agree, all the things I mentioned above should be kept under control as much as possible. With that in mind, I have a few suggestions on how we can help keep racism as limited as possible.

* DON'T DEFEND RACISM*

Just so we all understand how extreme racism can get and why it is viewed as such a major issue particularly by minorities, I'm afraid I have to point out this example; Six sick twisted individuals in West Virginia, tortured a young black women in ways that are too horrific to even mention here. If you feel you have to know what really happened , I've linked the story here. Generally, I'm against Capital Punishment, but my reason is the inequity of the application of it, not the morality of it. With this in mind, I say B.B.Q. the bastards......'nuff said. This is the way we should all respond to acts of racism of this degree. No excuses, no examples of equal acts by the other side. In fact, let's just simplify it and say anyone who treats another human being in this way deserves the worst punishment you'll stand for morally. Too often I hear people rush to relativism just because race is part of the story. Think how bad you look when your on their side for any reason. This applies to all races, genders, or sexual preferences. Wrong is wrong and we should never diminish it.

*MAKE RACE AN ISSUE ONLY WHEN IT IS AN ISSUE*

Too often we separate ourselves when we don't need to. I don't care that Mike Vick was black, torturing animals for entertainment is wrong. I don't care that the people in the story above are white, kidnapping and torturing someone is wrong. I never will be able to figure out why race is brought into some stories but not others. Often I've seen articles about acts of violence against white people that would not mention color at all. I was only able to determine that the victims were white by looking at their obituaries or by their pictures in related articles. At the same time, I've seen articles on crimes of an equal degree that make race an issue when the crime was white on black. This is a common complaint by white people. What is the standard? I once questioned the editor of a major local newspaper on why this was so. He told me their policy was to publish race only when a advocacy group made them. When I asked if there was a advocacy group that would do that for white people, he said there wasn't one because they refuse to recognize any group that was deemed a racist organization, and all white advocacy groups get put in that group. I look at it this way; if there is some value in pointing out race, such as a description of a criminal, a systemic flaw in the system showing bias, demonstrating that a wanted criminal has shown a pertinacity toward a certain kind of victim, or anything else that would help the general public protect itself, then it's O.K. to show race. Otherwise, I would like to see this minimized as much as possible. A robbery is a robbery, A murder is a murder, it shouldn't matter what color, gender, or style of clothes the perpetrator or victim had.

*DON'T LET POLITICIANS USE RACE TO DIVIDE*

From Willie Horton to Marion Barry, politicians use race to separate and divide for their own benefit. Sometimes they do it to get elected (Willie Horton) and sometimes they do it to get themselves off the hook (Marion Barry). The idea here is simple, use code words and innuendo to move people (usually the most racist among us) to their side even though we know what they are doing or did is wrong. Unfortunately, this usually works, which explains why they do it. Sometimes they do it even when it makes no sense at all. A recent example of this is the case of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit. Mayor Kilpatrick was sued by two Detroit police officers for firing them in retaliation to complaints the officers had made against the Mayor. The officers had gone to the press about a supposed wild party that Kilpatrick had thrown which included a couple of strippers and an attack by Kilpatrick's wife on one of the strippers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the two fired officers, awarding them $6.5 million for wrongful discharge. Kilpatrick then went on to assert the verdict was returned due to a mostly "suburban" (read white) jury. Never mind that both officers were themselves black. Even black Detroit Free Press journalist Stephen Henderson expressed his disdain for the Mayor's tactics by saying the Mayor was basically claiming, "Whitey stuck it to him." Unfortunately, the Mayor is right in believing a certain segment of black Detroiters will back him based only on that premise. We have to come to a standard that says it wrong for a politician to act badly....no matter his color, or don't be surprised if our cities fall to corruption.

*HOLD OUR MEDIA TO A HIGH STANDARD REGARDING RACE*

I have to give my friend Andre (Inside Andre's Head) credit on this one. He pointed out to me that the mainstream media has an obsession with missing white women and kids. At first I was a little sceptical, but soon I began to notice that what he was saying was true. (Sometimes it is necessary to point out inequities) White women and kids graced my T.V. screen almost exclusively. I have noticed though, that in recent times Fox News has responded to these accusations by running more stories about missing black children. (I'm still waiting on the missing black women) In the past two weeks they have run a story about a missing 10 day old child and a missing 3 year old. For at least recognizing this inequity, even if only under pressure, I give Fox Kudo's. I hope other networks follow suit. We need to make sure that our media, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to value anyone's life more than someone else's. I've said it before and I'll say it again, everyone's mother, father, brother, sister, whatever, grieve's for their loved one. If for any reason, you find yourself caring less about a child, or for that matter anyone, because of their race, gender, or sexual preference, take a long look at yourself in the mirror and see if you like what you see.

*DEFINE RACISM IN A WAY THAT'S FAIR TO ALL SIDES*

If there is any hope of us winning in our fight against racism, we have to come to terms on what racism is. I would hope that on the first example I gave you at least, we can all agree. As you all went through the rest of my piece, I'm sure it got more debatable. I hope that I at least gave all of you food for thought. One problem I see in our task of defining racism is in who should do the defining. Often on my campus, I see an effort by advocates to be the ultimate definers of what racism is. In there efforts to gain power, they work hard to shut out any other voices besides their own. If we are to come to any real consensus, we need to hear all sides. Certainly the debate will be emotional.... but it is necessary. To have one group do all the judging, or to have a group excluded from contributing is a way of guaranteeing that the problem will continue forever. If we can only make one step toward ending this plague, let it be hearing all sides and coming to a consensus, not a dictation. As I was telling a black police officer friend of mine the other day, " Your Great-Grandfather and mine would have never envisioned us standing here like this today; you a cop and me your friend." We have come far, but we have far to go. Let's all walk down this path together, we don't have to agree on everything. Only on the goal. H.C.

WHY ARE EX CLINTON AIDS DEFECTING TO OBAMA?

Question; What do Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Ivo Daalder, Sarah Sewall, and Greg Craig all have in common? The answer? All five are respected advisers who once worked for the Clinton Administration and now work for Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) on his presidential campaign. Now, if Ms. Clinton is the wonderful person that the left-leaning mainstream media wants us to believe, why are so many people who stood proudly with her husband fighting hard to keep her out of the White House? Could it be that the loud accusations that ex-Clinton political consultant Dick Morris has been making about Hillary are all true? One has to wonder.

Ever since Mr. Morris left the Clinton Administration, he has been telling anyone that would listen that Hillary is.....well, a bit of a bitch. Maybe I'm being too kind to Hillary there. Frankly, what Dick Morris has been saying is Hillary is a down-right evil, power hungry, backstabbing, vicious bitch who will run over anyone and say anything to become this nation's first female president. He wrote a book bashing the Clintons (Rewriting History) and another one bashing all the main Democrat Players and their shady ways (Outrage). After each book, Dick went out on tour, telling anyone that would have him ( Mostly just Fox News and right leaning talk show hosts) how evil the Clintons are. He must have struck quite a nerve as the George Soros funded (through the Democratic Alliance) media arm, Media Matters, went directly after Mr. Morris, attacking both him and his book. To be truthful, I always viewed Dick Morris as a disgruntled employee, mad at being cut out of the picture and now out for revenge. But the amount of ex-Clinton advisers joining Obama's camp has got me wondering.

So who exactly are these people? Let me go down the list. Susan E. Rice was the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, she was appointed by Bill in 1997. (Note that the Wikipedia site conveniently leaves Clinton's name out). Anthony Lake was one of candidate Bill Clinton's chief foreign policy advisers during his 1992 presidential bid. Following Clinton's 1996 reelection victory, Lake was nominated by President Clinton for CIA Director but was turned down after Republican objections. Ivo Daalder was in the Clinton administration from 1995-96, he served as director for European Affairs on President Clinton's National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordinating U.S. policy toward Bosnia. Sarah Sewall served as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance during the Clinton administration, and finally, Greg Craig was Clinton's lawyer during his impeachment proceedings.

Now, the question I have for all of you to chew on is this: Why have so many people who have faithfully advised, even defended, Bill Clinton during his years in the White House, joined up with a little known freshman Senator from Illinois to hopefully stop Hillary from becoming our next president? You know, I'm not sure I have the answer, but it is making me take a second look at all Dick Morris' accusations and wondering; Do all these people know something about Hillary Clinton that we don't....and should? H.C.

A DEMOCRAT AND A REPUBLICAN DISPLAY THEIR HYPOCRISY

As you may have noticed, I've created a new label (Giant Douches vs. Turd Sandwiches) for some of my posts. For those of you that don't watch South Park, it's a nod to one of my favorite episodes. The purpose of these posts will be to demonstrate how both sides, Democrat and Republican, are corrupt and complete hypocrites about what they claim to stand for. Since I think this is going to be a reoccurring theme all the way up to the fall '08 elections, I've decided to try to convince you that neither side is worth your loyalty. At the very least, you should be able to get a few laughs at how utterly stupid they both are as they condemn behavior....even as they participate in it.

* Keep Gay People Where They Belong, So I Can Find Them*

As some of you know by now, Larry Craig, a Republican Senator from Idaho, was caught this summer trying to pick up an undercover Vice-Squad Policeman in a Men's room stall at a Minneapolis airport. It seems Senator Craig played "footsies" and made some sexually advances to the undercover officer prior to his arrest. After a barrage of calls to resign by his Republican counterparts, Senator Craig finally conceded that he couldn't wait it out any longer, and resigned his position on Sept. 1, 2007. This wouldn't even be worth talking about if it wasn't for the fact that Senator Craig has been an outspoken opponent of Gay Rights in any form. Since this has been well reported by the mainstream media all I can add is this; When will gay Republicans learn that they shouldn't be in the closet about it, especially if their going to espouse anti-gay rhetoric? The only good news here is; at least the Republicans are holding their own accountable, even if it is only to end the "Culture of Corruption" tag given to them by the Democrats.

*Criminals For Clinton*

Speaking of the "Culture of Corruption", Hillary Clinton has found herself in the defensive position as she tries to explain why one of her top contributors is a fugitive from justice. It seems that Norman Hsu (pronounced like "Shoe") has donated over $225,000 to Democrat campaigns over the past three years all while being wanted for fraud and skipping out on his 1992 prison sentence. Hillary has tried to distance herself from Mr. Hsu despite having met him several times at fundraisers and even having had her picture taken with him. The general excuse being doled out by the Clinton camp is that she can't be responsible for the actions of all her donators (O.K., how about just the top 5?) and that Barack Obama also received some money from him as well, (Nice, throw someone else to the dogs to save your own ass.) For most of us older folks, this smacks of the Marc Rich fiasco. Mr. Rich was also a fugitive who gave heavily to the Bill Clinton Campaign and then was rewarded with a full pardon. It seems pardons are a big chip for the Clintons to get contributions. For the record, Mr. Hsu claims he wanted nothing in return for his contributions. (Insert laugh track here). This story was FAR less reported by the mainstream media and my guess is there will be no call by Democrats for any action to stop or punish this behavior.

Well, there you go. What a wonderful choice we have. Until the day voters say enough is enough and start "wasting" our votes on true third party candidates instead of these losers, I'm afraid the hypocrisy will just continue. The first step is to stop excusing their behavior. Republicans or Democrats, when you see this kind of thing going on, demand accountability, and not just during election years. If we don't demand better from our politicians and stop defending their bad behavior, our choice will continue to be between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, and it will continue to be what we deserve. H.C.

THE ULTIMATE PREDATOR

A lot of noise has been made lately by Animal Rights groups supporting leaving wild areas of the U.S. to natural predation, meaning that they want wolves and mountain lions as the top predators. The theory that the Animal Rights Activists have is this: If we bring back the high end predators, there will be no more need for the barbaric (in their eyes), practice of hunting. I guess on the surface that would seem to make sense. But by looking a little more into it, we begin to realize what we would be giving away. Hunting by humans is a far more specialized method of controlling populations, and I will argue here in this piece why I think you should support your local hunter as the primary force of controlling animal habitat and populations.

Hunting is as old as the earliest forms of man, in fact even before. All animals hunt in some way, either for vegetables, grasses, or meat. No matter what, something dies. We like to play God sometimes and value some life over another based mostly on how big it's eyes are, but to the thing that dies, there is no difference. All life should be treated with reverence, and we are naturally more protective of the lives we know, but I've come to accept that our place in nature is as a carnivore. I've often wondered what would happen if the future showed us that plants have a worse suffering being pan-fried than any animal does being shot.... wouldn't that freak a few vegans into starvation. I've always viewed Vegetarianism as the first step to anorexia anyway. First meat's gross, then crunchy things, then slimy things, and then soon.....you're not eating anything. If that's your path, then more power to you, but for me, I'm not chancing it.

Hunting isn't what it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or for that matter, even 20 years ago. Hunting has evolved into a money machine for government, a specialized tool for game management and a retail business.

Huge stores have opened around hunting, supplying tons of jobs. In fact, in the town of Dundee here in Michigan, they have a Cabala's Hunting Supplies that is now the number 1 tourist attraction in our state. In addition to that public revenue, hunting licenses supply a big part of the cost of running a Department of Natural Resources which maintains our parks, and state forests not to mention buying up tracks of land and supplying access to lakes and rivers. I think it's safe to say, without a functioning DNR, any state would be a far less attractive state both to people and to animals.

So what about the efforts to return areas to "Natural Predation"? Over all, they have been a complete flop. Most often the efforts end up costing lots of money with bad results. A good example of this would be the Isle Royal State park here in Michigan. Isle Royale is a beautiful island and a great research station for Predator/Prey relationships, particularly between moose and wolves. Unfortunately the top predator, man, is missing from all this research. Lately an interesting thing has been happening on Isle Royale. Ticks have been exploding in population, possibly due to global warming. The ticks are impacting the moose health to a point where not only are they dying, but so are the wolves that feed on them. The irony here is: even in their effort to isolate the situation on an island, man has found a way to impact them.

I like to think of hunting as more of an effort to live with our brothers; the mountain lion and the wolf, than an effort to replace them. We assume our role as the Alpha Hunter, and in that role we control the populations of not just the rabbit or deer, but also the wolf and the mountain lion. If you think about it, that's the way it has been since we first stood upright and discovered our thumbs. Frankly, I view the idea of removing us from the predatory hierarchy as upsetting the system and throwing everything out of balance. Why is it we view ourselves as somehow "outside" the order of things when we are so obviously the driving force? We affect things around us in ways that impact everything. From our homes, to our cars, to our roads, we decide how the landscape shall be arranged. Instead of being a pushing force or a caretaker of captive animals shouldn't we be learning to live with nature and not separate from it? There are ways for us to be more responsible, to pollute less, to have less children and to impact the environment less. But what may be our most important role in maintaining a healthy environment is assuming our role as the driving force behind sensible animal control, as the Ultimate Predator. H.C.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HYPOCRISY

An interesting thought has been reoccurring in the "free zone" of my tattered brain. "Why is it we seem to forgive those that are complete fuck ups as long as they have never claimed to be anything else, but we crucify anyone that claims to be good and has a failing?" It seems we humans have a natural aversion to hypocrisy. As a father, I know that any teenager worth their piercings is going to call you a hypocrite at one time or another. But what is a hypocrite? Should we wear it as a badge of honor, or hide our face in shame? Can the very idea shape the way we look at crimes? should it? When is it O.K. to be a hypocrite? Let's take a look at what I've come up with while pondering the philosophy of hypocrisy.

I guess the first question we should ask ourselves is: "What is hypocrisy and when are we guilty of it?" Well, the clearest definition I could find is,"Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have." That seems simple enough for me. Practice what you preach. But what is it exactly that someone who's trying to be good believes in? I think that's where it falls apart. We like to think that someone who holds themselves to a higher standard is somehow saying that they're perfect. So, when they show themselves not to be, we attack them as hypocrites, pretending to be something they're not. I think the crucial word here is "pretending". If your intent is trying to be a better person, then I don't see any hypocrisy. If your intent is to deceive people about your character, and you have no intention of trying to change your behavior, then you are indeed a hypocrite.

All that doesn't fit most people's definition of what a hypocrite is. An example of what most people think of when they think of a hypocrite is; Someone who had a child out of wedlock, or who did drugs as a young adult, now trying to give advice on how someone else should live. If you think about it, that doesn't fit the definition. Certainly, learning from your past mistakes and then using that knowledge doesn't mean you have two separate beliefs. It simply means you've learned.

Now, if I were to decide that I can't judge my kids behavior because mine was every bit as bad, I've just given my kids a free pass on some of the behavior that I thought was the most destructive on my life. If every generation keeps doing that and adding any transgressions of their own, my logic tells me you'll have a society that makes more and more mistakes. I want my kids to know I think smoking cigarettes is bad for you, even if I smoked them myself. I want my kids to make less mistakes than I did. I see no hypocrisy.

Finally, if we don't judge someone's behavior just because they'll tell you right off, "I'm a Jerk", "I'm a bit of a Player", or "I can be an asshole sometimes." We give them permission to act that way. Think about it, if the behavior is bad, what does it matter that you admit it? If someone says, "Yeah, I'm a racist." Does that make the behavior acceptable? NO. We need to be a little less forgiving of the people who act badly with no apologies and more forgiving of the people who try but fall. If we suspect that someone may be putting up a front for personal gain, by all means call them out. However, when you see someone who has done a lot of good in their life but had a moment of failing, we need to be a little forgiving. If there is no incentive for people to try to be good and total forgiveness for people who don't even care, we shouldn't be surprised that most people would rather simply give in to their temptations and admit it.... than take a chance at being crucified if they fail once. H.C.

P.S. I'll be out of town on vacation for the next week. I promise I'll answer any comments as soon as I get back.

THE DEVIL IN THE LAKE

"If anyone asks, we've been asleep all afternoon." My oldest brother half-whispered at me. Then in a flash, he and my second oldest brother disappeared into their bedroom. I noticed there was a slight hint of burning something or another in the air. The statement by itself was enough to make me wonder, but giving that it was only 5:00 in the afternoon and my brothers rarely took afternoon naps, I was getting very curious as to what was going on. Suddenly I heard a firetruck wailing in the distance. Slowly it grew louder and louder until it became obvious that it could only be going to one place. All the pieces fell together in one fleeting second. "Devil's Lake is on fire!" I raced to the screen door window and peered out at the people running down Bent Drive to Devil's Lake. Great plumes of smoke billowed out over the string of houses that rimmed the swamp that would eventually lead to the lake itself. The swamp was all cattails, and when summer would get dry, all it would take is a dropped match to set it off. And it would go up in a fury.

Devil's Lake was.....I mean is....located in the heart of the north end of Flint, Michigan and can be seen by driving down Pierson Road. It's now a shadow of it's former self. The swamps have been filled in along with the bogs. But there was a time when it was my backyard where I built forts and hunted frogs with my BB gun. Most any summer afternoon you could find me down by "The Drain" with my Zebco 33 fishing for bluegills and bullheads. We weren't really allowed to be down to the lake but since the "Soaps" were on from from noon till 3:00 it was easy to slip away.

Devil's Lake is what the people of Flint call the lake, but don't look for it on any maps. It's real name is Flint Park Lake, named after the Park that was once located on the east side of the lake. It was a nice little park, they tell me. It had a beach on the lake and a Coney Island style park complete with a Roller Coaster. But the Devil lurked down below it. It's form was that of an underground river that was eating up the soft ground on the bottom of the lake until one day it finally broke through. From then on it flowed in one side and out the other. That created buoyancy on one side, but on the other side it created suction and people who had fallen in said you could feel the Devil pulling you down.

The first sign of trouble for the Park was that people started drowning at the beach. Soon rumors of the "Devil in the Lake" started spreading and shortly thereafter, the Park was shut down.

Little by little the river pulled down pete (loose black organic dirt) from the one end of the lake, until trees stared to fall in and a strange bog formed. The roots of cattails and small trees formed enough of a mat to let vegetation grow even though the dirt beneath it was gone. If you weren't careful, you could fall through up to your armpits. Pallets were thrown down to reach the end where all the best fishing was. Looking back.....damn we were crazy. During the course of my youth I saw several kids pulled out of that lake. Each time we would huddle as close to the divers from the rescue squads as we could. We were fascinated by their stories of what it was like down there. Giant carp and catfish, stolen cars, water thick with black pete that seems to just hang in the water. Once one of them was nearly sucked in, and now they were all tied together with rope. Finally, the crowd would become quite and they would float the body up with balloons as we all would stare, horrified. The sound of a mother crying for her child is something that is hard to forget and it always came right as they lifted the body away from The Devil. I could easily live the rest of my life without ever hearing it again.

It seems that would have been enough to keep us away, but in the cattails we had a network of paths carved out, several cool lean-to forts, stashed BB guns, and a constant war going on with the kids on the other side of the lake. To just leave would be to surrender everything, especially our BB guns. None of us were even supposed to have them after Curt got shot in the eye. And a good stash fort, well defended, was our best hope to keep them. Our main fort was the coolest part. It had a roof built of old shed steel, and sticks shoved into the ground for walls. it had secret stash spots for our BB guns, cigarettes, and our prize possession, a playboy book we had successfully stolen from the drug store. In fact, it was so cool, it was it's downfall. My brothers and their friends discovered it and took to skipping school there and hanging out.

Apparently, my brother's friend, Dan, decided to start a "small" fire. My brothers said they were in the fort when they heard Dan start yelling, "IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! IT'S OUT OF CONTROL! They said they stepped out to find Dan waving his coat at the fire screaming RUN! RUN!

It was a pretty cool fire actually. No one got hurt and it burned mostly stuff the people around there wanted filled in anyway. But I remember that next day, sneaking out to look at the burnt remnants of our fort. I picked up a piece of the BB guns we weren't supposed to have and angrily threw it into the blacked forest. The next summer they began filling in the swamp for good. I guess somebody finally had enough of living next to a death trap, a mini-Vietnam, and a dumping ground. I remember them plowing over the fields where the park was and pushing the chunks of concrete into the bogs. Times change. Every once in a while I still drive by Devil's Lake and I wonder if the Devil still lives there. If he still grabs a hold of little boys stupid enough to wade on his slippery rocks. This story doesn't have a moral or really even a solid point. It's just that every once in a while I love to reminisce, to sit back and imagine myself a young boy again, standing on the edge of a pallet, catching my fiftieth bluegill of the day and defying the Devil that lives in the Lake. H.C.

THE TRUTH BEHIND CONSPIRACY THEORIES

What are they hiding in Area 51? Who really killed John F. Kennedy? Was Humpty Dumpty pushed? And most recently; Did George W. Bush's Administration stage 9/11?. Conspiracy Theories abound and have been with us as long as there has been gossip. I guess it proves that we are naturally suspicious of our Government and that's a good thing. But sometimes I think we take it well beyond the realm of reality.

The reason I bring this up is because someone gave me a copy of the Second Edition of the....hmmm, what's a good adjective?..... "educational" film "Loose Change". First off, it's amazing that there are legions of people who feel they have to evangelize this film as if it were the bible. For those people; take a moment and realize how similar you are to the people you refer to as "Christian Fanatics". Aren't you both just propagating a "Truth" you feel is critically important for people to know? Just a thought.

Anyway, I thought it would be a good research project into understanding conspiracy theories and the people who follow them. So, pen in hand, I set the disk a spinnin', and began taking notes on the most recent "the government did it" conspiracy theory; That George W. Bush and his pack of shady cohorts, planned and executed the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the bringing down of flight 93.

This is the point where I feel I have to make my little disclaimer;

"I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories."

At different points in my life I've worked for the Government on the City, State, and Federal levels. I find Government in general to be disorganized, clumsy, wasteful, and incapable of pulling off most anything effectively. I would point to FEMA, the CIA, Foreign Intelligence, The State Department, and frankly, damn near all government on almost any level as proof. Oddly enough, the people who most ardently believe in Conspiracy Theories agree with me. That seems like a conflict of thought to me, to believe that the Bush Administration is both stupid and incapable at the same time that they're brilliant and capable of preforming the damn near impossible. You know what I think? I believe that Clinton couldn't even get a B.J. without everyone finding out (And there were only two people involved). That Nixon couldn't preform a simple burglary. And that the Bush Administration can't even effectively whisper profanity without getting caught. On occassion, the military can keep somethings under their hat, but usually that's because everyone agrees it's the best thing for the country. Certainly blowing up skyscrapers and killing thousands is not something everyone would agree on.

Now, to go point by point on everything brought up in "Loose Change" would take a huge post. So, here are some sites that do it for me. Loose Change Debunked. Popular Mechanics. Journal of Debunking 9/11. I suggest watching the movie, then reading the debunks and then watching the movie again.

The real truth behind conspiracy theories is simply this; they sell books, they get made into movies, they're relatively easy to produce, and they can generate a ton of money. They can also preform a valuable service to people with political agendas. The Kennedy assassination theories, for example, have made J.F.K. a martyr, who died trying to set things right in a corrupt and prejudice government that would not let him get away with it. I'm sure the Democrats support that on some level. I've even heard that the government likes conspiracy theories on UFO's because it provides cover for sightings of their prototype aircraft. Certainly that would make sense from their standpoint. As for the movie; I found a ton of inconsistancies in "Loose Change". For example; They question why glass wasn't blown out of windows in the Pentagon by the plane's wings, and then, later in the film, they ask why the plane hit the only side of the Pentagon with fortified with high-impact glass. Doesn't that answer the question of why the glass wasn't blown out? I believe if you look at most conspiracy theories there is always an element of truth to them, but usually far more things that just don't make sense. I actually enjoy a few them myself and can be caught watching an "Alien Bodies at Area 51" show on some Sci-Fi channel. But I don't take them seriously. The real truth behind 9/11 is that terrorists attacked us. They tried to bring the Towers down in 1993 and this time they succeeded. Bush used the crisis to further his agenda, that's what politicians do. People made money and people lost money, that's what happens in any situation. You can read more into it if you want to, but I wouldn't recommend it. A good rule of thumb to remember is this; whatever truth you seek, you'll find. Whether it is the real truth or not. H.C.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON IRAQ

I've been a consistent supporter of staying in Iraq as long as we possibly can. It isn't that I've been that sure we can win, it's that I want to be sure we gave the innocent people in Iraq every opportunity to have a stable country. Unlike my Democrat counterparts (I consider myself an Independent.) I'm not ready yet to say that all is lost. But I will say it's starting to look pointless to continue fighting for people who won't, or can't, decide who's side they're on. I decided months ago to give General David Petraeus, the senior officer in Iraq, the time he asked for to implement his plan (The Surge) and see if it's working. September 15 is when he said he would know and I'm going to wait till then to decide what to do next. However, the clock is now ticking on my patience and it saddens me.

For over a year now I've been reading a blog called "Iraq the Model" written by two Iraqi men, Mohammed and Omar. Through out that year I've learned a lot about both of them; their love for cigars and patio barbecuing. And most importantly, their never-ending optimism that they will one day see a free and stable Iraq. Every time the conversation turned to the war, I couldn't help but feel their presence. Often I would wonder how they felt about some of the attacks near their home of Baghdad, or how they viewed the Americans after a blunder. Then, In tag-team style, they would explain in their blog their emotions, their fears, and their hopes. One day I noticed a strange thing would happen as I waited for their next posting. I would find myself being worried that something may have happened to them. Why weren't they posting? It's been days, what going on? Then a post would appear and I would breathe a sigh of relief. I am quite sure that because of them, I have a better understanding of what it's like to be an innocent person in Iraq watching the world outside trying to drag you in. And I guess I've come to view them as friends, even though they haven't a clue who I am.

I've tried to get some of my more Liberal friends to read their blog, or even one of the dozens that they link to. Yet as of now, I don't think one of them ever has. I've tried to rationalize why they wouldn't want to know what it's like from an Iraqi's prospective as opposed to some pre-chewed story. The closest I can get to an explanation is that it would be harder to walk away from someone, if you felt you knew them.

Which leads me to why it saddens me to have to say my patience is running out. I feel like I should have to say to both of them," I'm sorry Mohammed and Omar, but I'm running out of arguments when I'm so in the minority. I know that you fear that everything will erupt into violence far exceeding what you've seen so far if we leave. I know you fear for your family, yourself, and for Iraq, but we can't fight forever." To turn and walk away when you know it could hurt a friend seems so heartless, so self-absorbed, and frankly, that's just not me. The Iraqi people themselves did nothing to deserve the mess we've brought upon them, and to even think this isn't our fault is like denying slavery was our fault. My only hope is that somehow General Petraeus will save the day and his plan will work. Hopefully, the innocent Iraqi people will say enough is enough and join in his attempt. But with the war becoming increasingly unpopular, with elections coming in '08, with Democrats and now even some Republicans calling for withdraw, it's looking like the clock is ticking for Iraq. And also for my innocent friends, Mohammed and Omar. H.C.

P.S. I'm also posting a poem on my Myspace with sympathy to all the people in Iraq.

DEMOCRATS DISCOVER THE ONE EVIL NOT WORTH NEGOTIATING WITH

Democrats and Republicans very rarely come together to agree on anything. There's no new news there. But what's far less reported is the infighting that goes on within the parties on any given issue. From immigration to the War in Iraq, the positions taken by our presidential candidates on either side are all over the map. So it struck me as very strange that there is one issue that has completely galvanized the Democratic Party. That there is one Evil out there so great, so evil, such a threat to our country that they should not be negotiated with in any fashion or form. That threat to all humanity is Fox Broadcasting.

That's right, the people that brought you The Simpsons and American Idol are such a threat that all the Democrat Presidential contenders have agreed to boycott Fox. Now, normally I would just chalk this up to more partisan politics. But I couldn't help but laugh when I read this article. It seems that Fox CEO Roger Ailes made a comment about Barrack Obama that the Dems (who are always trying to find any hint of prejudice by any Republican so they can keep blacks faithfully on their side) took as offensive. Mr. Ailes claims it was a joke that took aim at Bush not Obama. The actual comment was; "And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' " I don't get it, clearly it does seem a slap at Bush being unable to separate the two. So, seeing their chance to accentuate their point, the Dems one by one rushed out to the press announcing that they were pulling out of the Fox sponsored debates in Nevada. The important thing to remember here is; this is really about reminding blacks how prejudice Republicans are behind the scenes. Taking a shot at Fox and having an excuse for not appearing at a venue that might actually ask some tough questions is just icing on the cake.

The great irony is; these are the people (Dems) who are constantly wanting to deal with terrorist supporting regimes. They want us to meet with Iran. They want us to meet with North Korea. They want us to deal with the government of Sudan (which is systematically exterminating some of it's own people). I'm sure they would say we should sit down with Osama Bin Laden himself if the chance arose. In the Democratic world there is no problem so big that it can't be solved with negotiation and no dictator so evil that he can't be reasoned with. With one exception-Fox Broadcasting, the only evil empire that can't be dealt with.

The official reason the Democrats are giving for their boycott is that Fox is controlled by the right wing and has a right-wing bias. Then, just to prove that they won't stand for any bias, the Dems rescheduled their debates to the 365gay channel. Now there's a venue with absolutely no bias whatsoever. I swear, you couldn't even make stuff up this funny. You know, the Democrats would have a lot more credibility with me if they wouldn't continuously contradict their own positions. (Yes I know the Republicans do it too, it's the Dems turn on the fire.)

I guess I should just be happy that the Democrats have finally seen the light. They have finally admitted that there is evil out there that is just plain evil. And how much more evil can you get than the people who brought us Al Bundy.

Finally, If I had my way, these debates would be handled by only hostile moderators. I would put the Republicans on CNN with James Carville asking all the questions and the Democrats would have to deal with Shawn Hannity on Fox and all his snippy remarks. I would even have special moderators for specific candidates like Dick Morris for Hillary Clinton and Giulani's past wives for Rudy. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to soft ball questions predicated by compliments and maybe, just maybe, we would get a debate worth watching with real insight into our candidates. In the meantime, I predict our wonderful Dems will continue to demand that we deal with terrorists and dictators and will continue to refuse to deal with the real threat to America, Fox Broadcasting and Al Bundy. H.C.

"ONE NATION, UNDER GOD?"

O.K., everyone get ready for a shock. I think the words "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. That's right, Pro-American, flag wavin' H.C. thinks those words no longer belong in our oath. If you've read some of my relatively pro-Christian rants, you're probably thinking, (As a lot of people do.) that I'm being inconsistent in my thinking, or that I'm just trying to get a rise out of people. But let me assure you, I believe what I'm about to tell you and I absolutely think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed.

It's not that I don't recognize our Christian heritage, it's not that I don't understand the enormous contribution of Judeo-Christian philosophy to our laws or our morality, it's not that I believe in total Separation of Church and State, and not even that I've decided to turn sharply left and join my secular friends so somebody on this planet will finally agree with me 100% of the time. (As good as that sounds sometimes.) So, what is my reason for wanting to blackout the words "under God"? Nationalism, pride, and inclusion.

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is not as long as you may think, in fact it's only been around for the second half of our nation's history. The Founding Fathers had no hand in it and as near as I could research, didn't even suggest it. It all started with a Baptist Minister named Francis Bellamy who liked the idea first suggested to him by his cousin Edward Bellamy of a pledge to help promote pride in the country. It was first published by Francis in "The Youth"s Companion", a well read magazine of the time, in September, 1891. But it wasn't until two years later when Bellamy introduced the Pledge to the American public during a celebration of Columbus Day in Boston that it started to take hold. Mr. Bellamy, as it turns out, was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association and incorporated his pledge into the public school system.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] Several changes were made to the original, replacing the word "my" with the word "the" and adding the words "of the United States of America" and finally "under God".

In 1954, a campaign by the Knights of Columbus to add the words "Under God" reached fruition. They had been campaigning hard for the last several years for the change based on the change they had made in their own reading of the Pledge at their meetings. President Eisenhower signed the change into law (Public Law relating to treatment of the flag) on Flag Day June 14, 1954, and our present-day Pledge of Allegiance was born.

So what's my problem? I have several.

First off, I believe that having a oath of allegiance to this country is a good idea and we should promote it. Unfortunately, over the past few decades I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashionable for people to trash this country. I'm fairly sure it started with the Vietnam protests and has continued to grow out of it. Add to that the rise in Liberalism and Secularism, both of which fundamentally dislike Capitalism and religion's role in the world, and you have the stage set for a great deal of our populace having no pride in the country they live in. Now, I know there are a lot of reasons, particularly in the past, that people feel our country has fallen far short of what we would have expected from our forefathers. But that is no reason not to have loyalty to the country in which you live in. In order to bring these people into the fold, we need to have a oath that they can say without reservation.

Second reason; the oath shouldn't be confused with a prayer. As much as I'm not a fan of removing Faith from any discussions, your asking people who do not believe in a God (over 8%) to swear allegiance to a country that exists "under God". Think of it this way Christians, would you swear allegiance to a country that had in it's oath "without God"? Of course not. Then there is the problem of incorporating it into our schools. With the present day arguments about Separation of Church and State, keeping those words makes the argument about church and State instead of pride and allegiance to your country where it should be. If you think it's a good idea to teach all of our children pride in this country so they will work hard to make it better, the words "under God" have to go.

Third reason; our country is becoming more and more diversified. We now have a significant portion of our country that believes in Buddhism, Confucianism, Atheism, Wicca, and many other religions that cannot affirm allegiance to a country which recognizes a Deity or even only one Deity. The words "under God" makes it hard for even the most patriotic among them to recite it.

What I'm talking about here is forming an oath that everyone can join in. If we are to survive as a country, we can not continue to find new ways to divide ourselves. You can, and should, have pride in the country you live in. I have heard many times from people who claim they will do nothing to support a country they have no pride in. I understand that pride, like respect, should be earned. But this country was born into the idea that it can change. Having no Nationalism makes our players weak and unmotivated to work toward betterment. I know it's a small part of the puzzle, but if our children at least start with the notion that they are committed to making this a better country, maybe more of them will work hard to make it so. If we continue to keep the words "under God" we may soon see a time when we have to remove the word "indivisible", and that would truly be a shame. H.C.

WHY NOT SOCIALISM?

"Socialism is a form of government that cannibalizes it's own assets."

I wish I could take credit for that quote, but the truth is; I heard it somewhere and can't remember where. Where ever it came from, I remembered it because I agreed with it. Socialism is not a revenue generating machine, but rather a way of redistributing wealth that already exists into the lower economic ranks where it will be consumed. Without the reintroduction of more wealth, it will simply slowly eat itself. Socialism is defined by Webster as; "A social system in which the producers (workers) possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." I would expand on that a little to include the fact that Socialism is the expansion of government into the role of protector, there to take care of your basic needs such as education, employment, and health care for better or worse.

With the release of Michael Moore's new movie, "SICKO", many Americans are now taking a second look at our system of government and wondering if an infusion of socialistic ideas could help us better serve the needs of the people. In this piece I'm going to review the idea of a more socialist U.S. and let you know which parts I feel are worth considering, and which are not.

The idea of Socialism has been around for a very long time in various forms. Most all were based on the idea that a caste-type system, or any system that has people of various social standings, is fundamentally wrong. Christian Socialism, for example, bases it's socialist beliefs in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus saw all men and women as equals and therefore, they believe, any system that values or empowers one person over another is fundamentally un-Christian.

I remember my first thoughts about the inequity of social standing coming from my Dad. He was a committed Walter Reuther Socialist. He believed that the real power of our country was rooted in the working man, not in the elites that ran the corporations. I can still hear him lecturing me on the evils of allowing the powerful to forget who does the real work around here. He's probably the reason I find myself so often siding with Labor and Unions and why I like to view myself as a fighter for the average Joe.

Without a doubt, the socialist movement of the 50's and '60's is a big reason that so many people here in Michigan prospered through their Unions. The empowerment of the labor class helped people like my Dad to live better lives, get better retirement, better working conditions, and a larger slice of the pie. So why the quote at the top of the page? Because just like what eventually happened to the auto workers here in Michigan, socialism proved that it kills the goose that lays the golden egg.

Here's where Socialism goes wrong. Let's say we are all collective farmers. We are each given 40 acres to farm and a tractor with implements. I'm a hard working and responsible farmer who takes care of his land and tractor but I live next door to a farmer who is neither responsible nor hard working. Despite our differences in effort, we are both viewed the same and rewarded for our efforts the same. Soon I notice that my neighbor has a new tractor because he didn't take care of his old one, that his house is kept up by the government because he refuses to do the work. Basically I realize that in order for us to remain equal in our possessions the government is rewarding him for being lazy while doing nothing for me because I take care of myself. No system can work that elevates those that do the least. It sucks the ambition out of the rest of us. Why try hard if the results are the same? This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism.

Another problem with Socialism as I see it is that it is parasitic in nature. Most Socialist countries spend a small fraction of their GDP on defense. The reason? They count on someone else defending them, like the U.S. defends Canada. If all the Socialist Countries in the world had to provide their own security, they would either have to abandon most of their programs or would be overrun by some far more aggressive country. Socialism is also parasitic in medicine. They rely heavily on drugs and procedures invented by Capitalistic countries. Once the Research and Development is done and the patents expire, they start mass producing generics for far cheaper than the companies that invented them. Without incentive (profit) to do all that R&D, advances in medicine would be badly crippled.

But what of the other aspects of Socialism? Some of them have merit. First among them for me is the idea of equal education. Part of the problem with Capitalism as practiced here in the U.S. is that our education system doesn't promote the most capable among us, it just maintains the status quo. Wealthier people are more likely to go to good schools and to go to good Universities. We don't promote our best and brightest among all of us, just the best among the already privileged. At the very least, every child should know that he has an equal chance to become anything he is willing to work hard to become. It saddens me to think that we may lose the person who could cure Cancer simply because they could not afford College or came from a low-rated school.

Second is access to health care. I honestly believe that no one could watch a child die of a disease due to his parent's lack of coverage while the child in the next bed with the same problem lives and still think that our system is not broken. I see too many jars in Party Stores with little children's faces on them begging for a bone marrow transplant, I hear far too many sad stories to stand by and take it any longer. I will be an advocate for Universal Coverage for at least catastrophic illness until the day I die or until it finally happens. It doesn't have to be Socialized Medicine, in fact, I think that it shouldn't be, but the idea of covering everyone is an idea who's time has come.

As we look around the world for good examples of where we want to be in taking care of the least among us, let us be careful. America allows people to dream, to believe that one day they too can be successful. Let's not destroy that dream because our system is in need of repair. Hard work should be rewarded, ambition and talent nurtured. The only thing that our system needs is fairer opportunity to succeed and the security of knowing that one unfortunate health event won't ruin your life. What we don't need is equal distribution of wealth or privilege and the killing off of the spirit of doing your best. If we can stay focused, we can fix these things without turning our country inside out. Why not Socialism? Because when your the most prosperous country on Earth, with the ability to cure all your own problems, you don't start following less prosperous countries with bigger problems. H.C.